ACLU – October 18, 2026

Legal Update: The Supreme Court begins a new term by agreeing to hear arguments in Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, a lawsuit brought by the ACLU and our partners that challenges the Trump administration’s mandatory detention policy.

As the deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, let me tell you about the next big case my team will be arguing before the Supreme Court.

This is a slightly longer email than usual, but it’s because we want you to have all you need to know about this critical case as we go to the Supreme Court.

The background:

• In July 2025, the Trump administration suddenly adopted a new radical misinterpretation of immigration law, declaring that anyone who entered the country without inspection must be detained without any individualized bond hearing. The administration’s mandatory detention policy does not take into account a person’s family or community ties or how long they have lived in the country. This means people who do not pose any flight risk will be locked up at taxpayer expense.
• Millions of immigrants are affected, including people eligible for legal status as well as those with long-pending immigration applications who have been waiting years due to administrative backlogs. This policy is cruel, inhumane, and most importantly, unlawful.
• That’s why it’s been challenged again and again, with hundreds of federal district judges ruling on thousands of related habeas petitions. And nine out of ten of those judges have ruled that the administration’s misinterpretation of the law is illegal.

The case, Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha:

• Our client Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha has been living in the United States for over 20 years, has a family, owns a home and a business, and has had an application for legal status pending since 2016.
• Nonetheless, in September 2025, the Department of Homeland Security detained him under the government’s new no-bond policy.
• A district court judge found this unlawful and ordered a bond hearing. An immigration judge then found that he was not a flight risk or a danger to the community and ordered his release.
• The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision and agreed that the administration’s new policy violated existing immigration law. In total, nine federal appeals courts have ruled against the policy, including the ruling at the center of this case.

What’s next:

• President Trump thinks he can subject all immigrants who enter the U.S. to mandatory detention, regardless of how long they have been in the country.
• The lower courts have repeatedly, resoundingly, and correctly rejected his radical misinterpretation of the law. Now, our nation’s highest court will weigh in, and their ruling could have major implications for the president’s mass deportation agenda.

The law is clear: Try as it might, the government cannot lock up immigrants like Mr. Barbosa da Cunha for months or even years without giving them the basic due process of a bond hearing.

The Trump administration can’t reinterpret the law at its own whim. We look forward to making that case to the Supreme Court, and we’ll be fighting with everything we’ve got.

I’m sure we’ll be sending you many updates as this case progresses. Until then, thank you for all you do to support our critical work,

Michael Tan
Pronouns: He, him, his
Deputy Director, ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project